Ckh v Ckg

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ,Judith Prakash JCA,Jonathan Hugh Mance IJ
• Judgment Date: 30 August 2022
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 1 of 2022

CKH

and

CKG

[2022] SGCA(I) 6

Sundaresh Menon CJ, Judith Prakash JCA and Jonathan Hugh Mance IJ

Civil Appeal No 1 of 2022

Court of Appeal

Arbitration — Award — Remission — Matter being remitted to arbitral tribunal — Party seeking to raise points alleged to fall outside scope of remission ordered — Whether open to party to raise those points before arbitral tribunal on remission — Article 34(4) UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration

Held, dismissing the appeal without an oral hearing:

(1) Although the power conferred by Art 34(4) of the Model Law was on its face relatively broad, the scope of remission was necessarily defined by the terms of the order for remission. Apart from the remission ordered, there was no basis on which a party in CKH's position or the Tribunal itself could seek to re-open or expand the subject matter of the award or arbitration. The Tribunal's original Award rendered it functus officio, save to the extent that the order for remission gave it revived power. The order for remission defined the limits of the exercise which the parties and the Tribunal could undertake when the matter returned before the Tribunal. This principle, which was in its essence that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was only revived to the extent of the remission ordered, was well supported in authority: at [6] and [7].

(2) CKH's challenges to the recitals in Annex A to the order of court (“the Recitals”) and to the order for remission made by the Judge – which had been upheld, so far as material, on appeal – were not open to it. The Recitals and order were integral aspects of the remission ordered under Art 34(4) of the Model Law and were res judicata. All that was open on the application before the Judge and the present appeal were issues of interpretation of the meaning and scope of the remission ordered: at [8].

(3) In this case, the matters raised by CKH fell outside the scope of the remission ordered. CKH's first submission was that an award made in another arbitration before the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration, in favour of a third company which CKH submitted could be equated with CKG, precluded the Principal Debt being pursued or taken into account in the present arbitration. CKH, by this submission, effectively sought to revisit an argument which had been addressed by the Court of Appeal in the previous proceedings to set aside the Award. CKH's second submission was that it was entitled to challenge and require proof of what sums were owing by way of the Principal Debt. That was not as such in issue, but the Tribunal had to proceed on the basis of the concessions already made by CKH, and CKH could not now revisit before the Tribunal the parameters fixed by the Recitals based on which the remission was ordered. CKH's third submission, that it was entitled to challenge the running of interest at 2% monthly compounded on the Principal Debt until the present date, also fell outside the scope of the limited remission ordered: at [9] to [11].

(4) In these circumstances, the court did not consider it necessary to hear oral arguments on the appeal, and dismissed the appeal with costs at the full amount of $30,000 claimed by CKG: at [1] and [12].

Case(s) referred to

AKN v ALC [2016] 1 SLR 966 (folld)

CKH v CKG [2022] SGCA(I) 4 (refd)

L W Infrastructure Pte Ltd v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd [2014] 1 SLR 1221 (folld)

Soh Beng Tee & Co Pte Ltd v Fairmount Development Pte Ltd [2007] 3 SLR(R) 86; [2007] 3 SLR 86 (folld)

Facts

This case arose from a strongly contested arbitration which had led to an arbitral award (“the Award”) made by the arbitral tribunal (“the Tribunal”). In previous proceedings to set aside the Award, the Court of Appeal had upheld (with one presently irrelevant variation) the decision of the international judge (“the Judge”) that the Award had failed to take into account the existence and quantum of a debt (“the Principal Debt”) and interest owing by the appellant (“CKH”) to the respondent (“CKG”) in relation to freight and taxes for logs supplied.

The Judge had exercised the power under Art 34(4) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“the Model Law”) scheduled to the International Arbitration Act (Cap 143A, 2002 Rev Ed) (“the IAA”) to suspend proceedings to set aside the Award “to give the arbitral tribunal an opportunity to resume the arbitral proceedings...